Open Decision Ledger · Capital markets & finance
Single Comprehensive Offense for Market Manipulation, the Purpose Requirement, Concurrent Imposition of a Fine on the Aider and Abettor, and Calculation of Profits from the Violation
Translated from the Korean original. Read the Korean
Supreme Court, Apr. 9, 2009, 2009Do675 (judgment)
No holding summary · checked against points at issue. The official text publishes no summary of the holding for this decision. The quotation and factors in this record are copied verbatim from the points at issue; the evidence for each axis is taken from the points at issue, the order and the reasons.
Case name: 증권거래법위반(피고인3에대하여인정된죄명:증권거래법위반방조)
Official text on the National Law Information Center
Question
Do repeated trades made for the purpose of market manipulation constitute a single comprehensive offense, may a fine also be imposed concurrently on the aider and abettor, and how are the profits gained from the violation calculated in that case?
Holding
The Supreme Court held that repeated false buy orders, high-price purchases, and matched orders made for the purpose of market manipulation constitute a single comprehensive offense carried out under a single and continuing intent, and that awareness of the possibility of such a purpose suffices. A fine may also be imposed concurrently on the aider and abettor, but it must be mitigated compared with the sentence imposed on the principal offender, and the profits are the net trading profits obtained by deducting the total purchase amount and the transaction costs from the total sale amount; it therefore dismissed all final appeals in their entirety.
Points at issue, verbatim
주식시세조종의 목적으로 허위매수주문행위, 고개매수주문행위 및 통정매매행위 등을 반복한 경우의 죄수(=포괄일죄)
Unofficial English translation
Number of offenses where fictitious buy orders, high-price buy orders, and matched orders, etc. are repeatedly placed for the purpose of manipulating stock market prices (= single comprehensive offense)
Disposition
Dismissed Stated in the decision
상고를 모두 기각한다.
Unofficial English translation
All appeals are dismissed.
Form of the test
Existing test applied Read from the decision
위 법리와 기록에 비추어 살펴보면, 원심이 그 판시와 같은 사실들을 인정한 다음
Unofficial English translation
Examining this case in light of the foregoing legal principle and the records, the court below found the facts as stated in its judgment and thereafter
Factors
- 자백의 신빙성 유무에 대한 판단 기준
- ‘거래가 성황을 이루고 있는 듯이 잘못 알게 하거나 기타 타인으로 하여금 그릇된 판단을 하게 할 목적’의 의미
- 시세조종행위의 방조범에 대한 벌금형의 병과가능성 및 감경 여부(적극)
- ‘위반행위로 얻은 이익’의 의미 및 그 산정 방법
Unofficial English translation
• Criteria for determining the credibility of a confession
• Meaning of 'the purpose of misleading others into falsely believing that active trading is taking place or causing others to make erroneous judgments'
• Possibility of concurrently imposing a fine on an abettor of market manipulation and whether the sentence may be reduced (affirmative)
• Meaning of 'gains obtained from the violation' and the method of calculating the same
Relation to precedent
Follows earlier decisions Stated in the decision
대법원 2005. 11. 10. 선고 2004도1164 판결(공2005하, 1993)
Unofficial English translation
Supreme Court Decision 2004Do1164 decided November 10, 2005 (Gong 2005 Ha, 1993)
Decisions referred to
[1] 대법원 2003. 6. 24. 선고 2000도5442 판결(공2003하, 1646), 대법원 2003. 9. 26. 선고 2002도3924 판결(공2003하, 2121), 대법원 2008. 6. 26. 선고 2008도1994 판결 / [2] 대법원 2002. 6. 14. 선고 2002도1256 판결(공2002하, 1741), 대법원 2002. 7. 22. 선고 2002도1696 판결(공2002하, 2100), 대법원 2002. 7. 26. 선고 2001도4947 판결(공2002하, 2127) / [3] 대법원 2001. 11. 27. 선고 2001도3567 판결(공2002상, 222), 대법원 2004. 3. 26. 선고 2003도7112 판결(공2004상, 747), 대법원 2005. 11. 10. 선고 2004도1164 판결(공2005하, 1993), 대법원 2007. 11. 29. 선고 2007도7471 판결 / [4] 대법원 2002. 7. 22. 선고 2002도1696 판결(공2002상, 2100), 대법원 2002. 7. 26. 선고 2001도4947 판결(공2002하, 2127), 대법원 2004. 3. 26. 선고 2003도7112 판결(공2004상, 747), 대법원 2006. 5. 11. 선고 2003도4320 판결(공2006상, 1079), 대법원 2007. 11. 29. 선고 2007도7471 판결 / [6] 대법원 2002. 6. 14. 선고 2002도1256 판결(공2002하, 1741), 대법원 2002. 7. 26. 선고 2002도1855 판결(공2002하, 2159), 대법원 2003. 11. 14. 선고 2003도686 판결(공2003하, 2404), 대법원 2003. 12. 12. 선고 2001도606 판결(공2004상, 192), 대법원 2004. 5. 28. 선고 2004도1465 판결 (공2004하, 1129), 대법원 2007. 11. 15. 선고, 2007도6336 판결
Burden of proof
Not addressed Not in the decision
Open question and revisit condition
To what extent may the full amount of the profits gained by the principal offender be used as the basis for the maximum fine on the aider and abettor when a fine is imposed concurrently on the aider and abettor?
If the profit calculation provisions of Articles 176 or 443 of the Financial Investment Services and Capital Markets Act are amended, or if the case law on the calculation of profits changes, this reading is re-examined.
Cross-family AI independent reading & axis check
5 of 8 axes matched GPT-6 Astra (OpenAI, codex CLI) · 2026-10-16
Compared with an independent reading by a different AI lineage (GPT-6 Astra), which read only the original text without seeing the first reading, 5 of the 8 axes matched, and the readings diverged on axis 4 (Form of the test), axis 5 (Factors), and axis 8 (Open question and revisit condition).
Axis 4 (Form of the test): Primary “Existing test applied” vs Independent “Elements stated”
Because the Holdings state the meaning of the purpose, the criteria for judgment, and the method of calculating profits, while the dispositive part dismisses the final appeal, the first reading may emphasize application to the case, and the independent reading may emphasize the statement of general elements.
증권거래법 제188조의4 제1항 위반죄의 주관적 구성요건으로서 ‘거래가 성황을 이루고 있는 듯이 잘못 알게 하거나 기타 타인으로 하여금 그릇된 판단을 하게 할 목적’의 의미Axis 5 (Factors): Primary “Criteria for assessing the credibility of a confession / the meaning of 'the purpose of misleading others into believing that active trading is taking place, or otherwise causing another person to make an erroneous judgment' / whether a fine may be imposed concurrently on the aider and abettor of market manipulation and whether it is to be mitigated (affirmative) / the meaning of 'the profits gained from the violation' and the method of calculating them” vs Independent “Credibility of a confession / purpose of stock market manipulation / false buy order transactions / matched order transactions / purpose of inducing securities transactions”
The credibility of the confession and the purpose of market manipulation overlap, but the first reading takes the punishment of the aider and abettor and the calculation of profits as its central factors, while the independent reading takes the types of orders and trades and the purpose of inducing trading.
주식시세조종의 목적으로 허위매수주문행위, 고개매수주문행위 및 통정매매행위 등을 반복한 경우의 죄수(=포괄일죄)Axis 8 (Open question and revisit condition): Primary “To what extent may the full amount of the profits gained by the principal offender be used as the basis for the maximum fine on the aider and abettor when a fine is imposed concurrently on the aider and abettor?” vs Independent “Where market manipulation trades are mixed with independent, normal trades, how is the scope of trades to be included in the calculation of net trading profits to be distinguished?”
The first reading asks the extent to which the principal's profits may be reflected in the maximum fine for the aider and abettor, while the independent reading asks the scope of trades to be included in the calculation of profits where normal trades are mixed in.
주식시세조종의 목적으로 허위매수주문행위, 고개매수주문행위 및 통정매매행위 등을 반복한 경우의 죄수(=포괄일죄)Raw responses and comparison record: Protocol · Blind readings (JSONL) · Axis comparison (JSONL) · SHA-256 (JSON)
Lower-court contrast & scope of application
Lower-court reading vs. Supreme Court holding
Lower-court context: The court below (Seoul High Court Decision 2008No1506) treated the individual trading acts of Defendants 1 and 2 comprehensively, by intensive trading period and by issue, as a single comprehensive offense in violation of Article 188-4 of the former Securities and Exchange Act, and recognized Defendant 3 as an aider and abettor; after mitigation for aiding, aggravated punishment for concurrent crimes, and discretionary mitigation, a fine of 300 million won was imposed concurrently on Defendant 3.
Supreme Court standard: In light of the existing legal principles concerning the criteria for assessing the credibility of a confession, the single comprehensive offense, awareness of the possibility as to the purpose requirement, the concurrent imposition of a fine on the aider and abettor and its mitigation, and the calculation of net trading profits, the Supreme Court considered the determination of the court below to be proper and found no misapprehension of legal principles or other violation of law, and accepted it as it stood.
Distinguishing conditions
- Where the repeated trades cannot be regarded as having been carried out under a single and continuing intent, and the period or issues are discontinuous so that separate intents are recognized
- Where the trades are attributable to normal supply and demand, so that no possibility is recognized of artificially affecting the market price or trading volume
- Where, as these are not actual transactions, net trading profits cannot be calculated from the difference between the total sale amount and the total purchase amount, as in this type of violation
Record verification notes
Before asserting the same conclusion, it needs to be checked whether circumstantial facts such as the nature of the securities, trends in price and trading volume, the market participation rate, and closing price management actually support a purpose of market manipulation, and whether transaction costs such as commissions and securities transaction tax were deducted in the calculation of profits.
From the official text
Points at issue
[1] 자백의 신빙성 유무에 대한 판단 기준 [2] 주식시세조종의 목적으로 허위매수주문행위, 고개매수주문행위 및 통정매매행위 등을 반복한 경우의 죄수(=포괄일죄) [3] 증권거래법 제188조의4 제1항 위반죄의 주관적 구성요건으로서 ‘거래가 성황을 이루고 있는 듯이 잘못 알게 하거나 기타 타인으로 하여금 그릇된 판단을 하게 할 목적’의 의미 [4] 시세조종 등의 금지에 관한 증권거래법 제188조의4 제2항의 ‘매매거래를 유인할 목적’의 의미 및 같은 항 제1호에 정한 ‘유가증권의 매매거래가 성황을 이루고 있는 듯이 잘못 알게 하거나 그 시세를 변동시키는 매매거래’에 해당하는지 여부의 판단 기준 [5] 시세조종행위의 방조범에 대한 벌금형의 병과가능성 및 감경 여부(적극) [6] 증권거래법 제207조의2 제1항 단서 및 제2항에서 규정하고 있는 ‘위반행위로 얻은 이익’의 의미 및 그 산정 방법
Unofficial English translation
[1] Criteria for determining the credibility of a confession [2] Number of offenses where fictitious buy orders, high-price buy orders, and matched orders, etc. are repeatedly placed for the purpose of manipulating stock market prices (= single comprehensive offense) [3] Meaning of 'the purpose of misleading others into falsely believing that active trading is taking place or causing others to make erroneous judgments' as a subjective constituent element of the offense of violation of Article 188-4 (1) of the Securities and Exchange Act [4] Meaning of 'the purpose of inducing securities trading' in Article 188-4 (2) of the Securities and Exchange Act concerning the prohibition of market manipulation, etc., and criteria for determining whether it falls under 'trading in securities that misleads others into falsely believing that active trading is taking place or that causes the market price thereof to fluctuate' as provided in subparagraph 1 of the same paragraph [5] Possibility of concurrently imposing a fine on an abettor of market manipulation and whether the sentence may be reduced (affirmative) [6] Meaning of 'gains obtained from the violation' as prescribed in the proviso to Article 207-2 (1) and paragraph (2) of the Securities and Exchange Act and the method of calculating the same
Summary of the holding
The official text publishes no summary of the holding for this decision. The quotation and factors in this record are copied verbatim from the points at issue; the evidence for each axis is taken from the points at issue, the order and the reasons.
Order
상고를 모두 기각한다. 피고인 1에 대하여는 상고 후의 구금일수 중 85일을 판시 징역형에 산입한다.
Unofficial English translation
All appeals are dismissed. As to Defendant 1, 85 days of the period of detention after the final appeal is filed shall be deemed served as part of the term of imprisonment as stated in the judgment.
Provisions referred to
[1] 형사소송법 제309조 [2] 형법 제37조, 구 증권거래법(2007. 8. 3. 법률 제8635호 자본시장과 금융투자업에 관한 법률 부칙 제2조 제1호로 폐지) 제188조의4 제1항(현행 자본시장과 금융투자업에 관한 법률 제176조 제1항 참조), 제2항(현행 자본시장과 금융투자업에 관한 법률 제176조 제2항 참조), 제207조의2(현행 자본시장과 금융투자업에 관한 법률 제443조 참조) [3] 구 증권거래법(2007. 8. 3. 법률 제8635호 자본시장과 금융투자업에 관한 법률 부칙 제2조 제1호로 폐지) 제188조의4 제1항(현행 자본시장과 금융투자업에 관한 법률 제176조 제1항 참조) [4] 구 증권거래법(2007. 8. 3. 법률 제8635호 자본시장과 금융투자업에 관한 법률 부칙 제2조 제1호로 폐지) 제188조의4 제2항(현행 자본시장과 금융투자업에 관한 법률 제176조 제2항 참조) [5] 구 증권거래법(2007. 8. 3. 법률 제8635호 자본시장과 금융투자업에 관한 법률 부칙 제2조 제1호로 폐지) 제188조의4 제1항(현행 자본시장과 금융투자업에 관한 법률 제176조 제1항 참조), 제2항(현행 자본시장과 금융투자업에 관한 법률 제176조 제2항 참조), 제214조 제1항(현행 자본시장과 금융투자업에 관한 법률 제447조 제1항 참조), 형법 제32조 [6] 구 증권거래법(2007. 8. 3. 법률 제8635호 자본시장과 금융투자업에 관한 법률 부칙 제2조 제1호로 폐지) 제207조의2 제1항(현행 자본시장과 금융투자업에 관한 법률 제443조 제1항 참조), 제2항(현행 자본시장과 금융투자업에 관한 법률 제443조 제2항 참조)
Read 2026-10-16 · Cross-read 2026-10-16. All quotes matched against the official text. The Chinese-character placeholders the court used for anonymised parties are given in their Korean readings, and parenthetical Chinese-character glosses are omitted.
Every entry is published only after all quotes have been matched character by character against the official text, and audited by an independent second reading from a different model family across all eight axes. Both agreed axes and text-grounded interpretive divergences are recorded openly. The ledger is a research record, not an assessment of the court or advice on any matter.
Back to the ledger